Model comparison

Llama 2-7B vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 28.0.

Side by side

Llama 2-7B and Trinity Large Thinking specifications
Llama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderMetaArcee AI
Noometry Index29.138.6
Released2023-07-182026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked2924

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding10021381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts10091350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
BIG-Bench Hard39.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index99.06—
HellaSwag77.2%—
LAMBADA73.3%—
PIQA78.8%—
WinoGrande69.2%—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math10421366
GSM8K16.7%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert10361360
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%
ARC (AI2) Challenge45.9%—
BoolQ77.9%—
MMLU45.8%—
OpenBookQA58.6%—
TriviaQA73.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
ScienceQA43.1%—

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English9731325
LMArena Chinese9731373
LMArena French9701374
LMArena German9781356
LMArena Russian9951337
LMArena Spanish10071357
LMArena Japanese—1311
LMArena Korean—1306

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following10061334

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query9991355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text10531340
LMArena Creative Writing10331320
LMArena Multi-Turn10291342

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-7B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-7B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper